Flying IFR with Garmins

[Robert M. Gary]

I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
straight, they turn like roads).

So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

-Robert

[Dash8Driver]

Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
> in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
> fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
> the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
> putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
> pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
> restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
> gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
> straight, they turn like roads).
>
> So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>
> -Robert

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary) wrote:

>I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
>in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
>fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
>the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
>putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
>pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
>restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
>gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
>straight, they turn like roads).
>
>So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>
>-Robert

My CNX80 has the airways.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Nathan Young]

Same thing for the 295. VORs in the flightplan.

>Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?
>
>
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>> I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
>> in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
>> fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
>> the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
>> putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
>> pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
>> restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
>> gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
>> straight, they turn like roads).
>>
>> So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>>
>> -Robert
>

[David Lindenauer]

On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:
>So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?

You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
when the workload reduces.

-Dave Lindenauer, N212MT (with GNS430)

[Robert M. Gary]

"Dash8Driver" > wrote in message news:<J3Qzc.56901$HG.14900@attbi_s53>...
> Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?

Its not the flight plan I'm worried about, its the frequent changes to
it by ATC. The reason we use airways out west is because it simplifies
all the turns around restricted airspace and busy airspace. If you
can't enter an airway, you'd need to put in every point along the
airway that defines a turn.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Dash8Driver wrote:

> Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?

And, turn points between VORs, if any.

[[email protected]]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> "Dash8Driver" > wrote in message news:<J3Qzc.56901$HG.14900@attbi_s53>...
> > Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?
>
> Its not the flight plan I'm worried about, its the frequent changes to
> it by ATC. The reason we use airways out west is because it simplifies
> all the turns around restricted airspace and busy airspace. If you
> can't enter an airway, you'd need to put in every point along the
> airway that defines a turn.
>
> -Robert

What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't have that. Those are
the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:
> What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins
> don't have that. Those are the domain of airliners and biz jets for
> the most part.

You should check out the CNX-80. The airways are in the database, and
you enter clearances just the way the controller reads them to you,
including the airways. No need to search a paper chart to find all the
intermediate airway fixes.

The CNX-80 is an awesome box.

[McGregor]

> What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
have that. Those are
> the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.


Give me a break. My ancient Northstar M3 GPS has airways. My equally ancient
Argus 7000 has airways.
Garmin just sucks.

[Michael 182]

I wonder if this will be fixed at some point. I believe the data card also
carries some programming logic - maybe airways can be added at a later date.

Michael

"McGregor" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins
don't
> have that. Those are
> > the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.
>
>
> Give me a break. My ancient Northstar M3 GPS has airways. My equally
ancient
> Argus 7000 has airways.
> Garmin just sucks.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
> > What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins
> > don't have that. Those are the domain of airliners and biz jets for
> > the most part.
>
> You should check out the CNX-80. The airways are in the database, and
> you enter clearances just the way the controller reads them to you,
> including the airways. No need to search a paper chart to find all the
> intermediate airway fixes.
>
> The CNX-80 is an awesome box.

That why I said for the mostpart. ;-)

[[email protected]]

McGregor wrote:

> > What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
> have that. Those are
> > the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.
>
> Give me a break. My ancient Northstar M3 GPS has airways. My equally ancient
> Argus 7000 has airways.
> Garmin just sucks.

That's why I said for the most part. But, those old, clunky boxes come up
pretty short for the most part.

[[email protected]]

Michael 182 wrote:

> I wonder if this will be fixed at some point. I believe the data card also
> carries some programming logic - maybe airways can be added at a later date.

In my view Garmin screwed up with the 400/500 in this respect. They do have
complete routes for SIDS and STARs, which often are the same as airways for a
couple of hundred miles, or so.

[Stan Prevost]

> wrote in message ...
>
> What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
have that. Those are
> the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.
>

Even my old Northstar M3 has an airway data base. And I frequently use it
to fly a flight plan using airways.

[[email protected]]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't
> have that. Those are
> > the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.
> >
>
> Even my old Northstar M3 has an airway data base. And I frequently use it
> to fly a flight plan using airways.

Sigh. That's why I said for the most part. ;-) There are very few of those in
use compared to Garmins and Kings.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> > "Dash8Driver" > wrote in message news:<J3Qzc.56901$HG.14900@attbi_s53>...
> > > Enter VORs as waypoints in a flight plan?
> >
> > Its not the flight plan I'm worried about, its the frequent changes to
> > it by ATC. The reason we use airways out west is because it simplifies
> > all the turns around restricted airspace and busy airspace. If you
> > can't enter an airway, you'd need to put in every point along the
> > airway that defines a turn.
> >
> > -Robert
>
> What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins don't have that. Those are
> the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.

I have it in my current handheld (Skymap IIIc). However, the terrain
looks better in the 296 and the battery backup is great (as well as
the turn coorindator) so I'll accept the loss of airways for the new
296. Looking at previous ebay sales, I can probably get enough from my
old IIIc to pay for the 296. The IIIc has a much bigger screen and
nice joystick control.

-Robert

[Stan Prevost]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > What you're looking for is an airway database. Even the IFR Garmins
don't
> > have that. Those are
> > > the domain of airliners and biz jets for the most part.
> > >
> >
> > Even my old Northstar M3 has an airway data base. And I frequently use
it
> > to fly a flight plan using airways.
>
> Sigh. That's why I said for the most part. ;-) There are very few of
those in
> use compared to Garmins and Kings.
>

I have flown behind Garmin, King, and Apollo, and I still prefer my M3. How
dare you call my favorite box "clunky"! :-)

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

> I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
> in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
> fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
> the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
> putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
> pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
> restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
> gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
> straight, they turn like roads).
>
> So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>
> -Robert

Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
navigation kind of seems backwards.

[Robert M. Gary]

(David Lindenauer) wrote in message >...
> On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
> wrote:
> >So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>
> You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
> intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
> just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
> when the workload reduces.

Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
airway you are?

[Michael 182]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> (David Lindenauer) wrote in message
>...
> > On 15 Jun 2004 21:18:09 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
> > wrote:
> > >So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
> >
> > You have to put in everything that creates a bend in the airway: VORs,
> > intersections. To make the task less daunting, in practice I put in
> > just the first couple of these, then add the rest in cruise flight
> > when the workload reduces.
>
> Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
> you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
> airway you are?

You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

Michael

[Michael 182]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> om:
>
> > I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
> > in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
> > fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
> > the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
> > putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
> > pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
> > restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
> > gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
> > straight, they turn like roads).
> >
> > So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
> >
> > -Robert
>
> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> navigation kind of seems backwards.

Because you can enter a full flight plan and follow it, rather than fiddling
with the VOR receivers every 15 minutes.

Michael

>
>
>
>

[Newps]

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message


> > Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> > navigation kind of seems backwards.

Have you tried it? Putting a flightplan in the GPS and then flying the line
on the moving map eliminates having to worry about crosswind correction.
None of this flying a heading for awhile and seeing how that works. Then
adjusting that heading constantly for constantly changing conditions. With
a GPS you don't need a DG to fly an airway.

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> om:
>
>
>>I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
>>in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
>>fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
>>the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
>>putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
>>pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
>>restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
>>gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
>>straight, they turn like roads).
>>
>>So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
>>
>>-Robert
>
>
> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> navigation kind of seems backwards.

I don't know if any VOR system that can accept a programmed flight plan
and then sequence through it automatically! I often fly VORs and
airways even with an IFR GPS. It often adds less than 5% to the
distance and it is nice to have the VORs as instant backup if needed.
However, the flight plan sequencing of the GPS is still nice.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> navigation kind of seems backwards.

There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.

1) GPS is more accurate.

2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.

3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.

4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
poor reception at low altitudes.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
>> airway navigation kind of seems backwards.
>
> There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.
>
> 1) GPS is more accurate.
>
> 2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
> than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.
>
> 3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
> co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.
>
> 4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
> poor reception at low altitudes.



All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

[Michael 182]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
> want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

Because lots of times ATC doesn't give me direct, especially in the East.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message news:<li4Ac.64896$Sw.58611@attbi_s51>...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> . 158...
> > (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> > om:
> >
> > > I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
> > > in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
> > > fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
> > > the 296 are airways. On my Skymap IIIc I can easily fly an airway by
> > > putting the white course line on the pink airway line. Airways are
> > > pretty common in the West where airways provide routes around
> > > restricted airspace and around busy areas (like LAX) so ATC often
> > > gives you airways rather than a million vectors (our airways are not
> > > straight, they turn like roads).
> > >
> > > So how do you Garmin guys easily fly along an airway graphically?
> > >
> > > -Robert
> >
> > Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> > navigation kind of seems backwards.
>
> Because you can enter a full flight plan and follow it, rather than fiddling
> with the VOR receivers every 15 minutes.
>
> Michael

And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
the clouds in busy airspace. Also, you don't need to change the VOR
everytime the airway turns. You easily see that on a GPS.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
> >> airway navigation kind of seems backwards.
> >
> > There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.
> >
> > 1) GPS is more accurate.
> >
> > 2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
> > than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.
> >
> > 3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
> > co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.
> >
> > 4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
> > poor reception at low altitudes.
>
>
>
> All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
> want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

Ah. I see; a good answer to the wrong question :-)

OK, a couple more (hopefully good) answsers:

1) Because that's what your clearance is.

2) Because it guarantees terrain clearance.

3) Where there's lots of SUA, airways are often designed to avoid the
SUA's.

4) Because they're printed on sectionals, so it helps with situational
awareness.

All that being said, if the route was my own choice and I had GPS, I'd
probably just punch in "direct destination" and off I go :-)

[John Bell]

> Do you define them between two airway points (one behind you) or do
> you have to direct to the next fix and just guess how far off the
> airway you are?

Robert,

Download my book at www.cockpitgps.com. It's free. Start at GPS Route
Planning, then the Navigation section, then the Route Intercepts Section.
Even though my examples do not use a 296, they are still applicable.

John Bell

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for airway
> navigation kind of seems backwards.

For one thing, GPS will keep you right in the center of the airway's
protected airspace at all times. With long VOR legs, lousy G/A VOR
receivers, and aging FAA VOR stations, you can easily depart protected
airspace on a long airway segment, like many in the mountainous west.

[Jeff]

because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
with an IFR certified GPS


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
> >> airway navigation kind of seems backwards.
> >
> > There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.
> >
> > 1) GPS is more accurate.
> >
> > 2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
> > than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.
> >
> > 3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
> > co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.
> >
> > 4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
> > poor reception at low altitudes.
>
> All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
> want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS,

Oh dear...

[Hankal]

>because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS

Why not? I hardly ever file direct and when I do, ATC will amend the clearance.
However I often hear ATC tell me to go direct.
In my IFR flight plan I specify that I have a VFR GPS on board.
Hank

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >> Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
> >> airway navigation kind of seems backwards.
> >
> > There are lots of reasons to use GPS to fly airways instead of VORs.
> >
> > 1) GPS is more accurate.
> >
> > 2) GPS's cross-track error display on the CDI is easier to interpret
> > than a VOR's angular displacement, especially near the navaid.
> >
> > 3) GPS gives you distance from every fix, not just navaids with
> > co-located DME. And it's horizontal distance, not slant distance.
> >
> > 4) With GPS, you don't have to worry about navaid service volumes and
> > poor reception at low altitudes.
>
>
>
> All of the above are good reasons, but what I meant was, why would you
> want to fly airways with a GPS when you can go direct?


No one wants to, but you can't control everything. The reason airways
are so common out West is because they include all the turns around
restricted airspace and busy class B airports. If you didn't use
airways, you'd have to read off 5 different turn points (for GPS
direct).

-Robert

[Julian Scarfe]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...

> And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
> trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
> the clouds in busy airspace.

There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using the
GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial. Forgive
me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots don't
use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

Julian Scarfe

[John Harper]

I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
should
be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
zigzagging its way down the airways.

John

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:yMbBc.15$9D3.5@newsfe6-win...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > And you don't have to try to figure out the correction angle while
> > trying to stay on the airway while you are getting bounced around in
> > the clouds in busy airspace.
>
> There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using
the
> GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial.
Forgive
> me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots
don't
> use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
> conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

[Michael 182]

Sounds like you have a Cessna 300A.

Michael


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1087790958.150362@sj-nntpcache-5...
> I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
> my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
> should
> be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
> zigzagging its way down the airways.

[Robert M. Gary]

How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
been able to find anything on this in the manual.

> There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using the
> GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial. Forgive
> me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots don't
> use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
> conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).
>
> Julian Scarfe

[Michael 182]

I don't know if the 296 has the same capability as the 430, but on the 430
you can define user waypoints as radials and distance from a VOR.


Michael

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
> to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
> been able to find anything on this in the manual.
>
> > There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using
the
> > GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial.
Forgive
> > me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots
don't
> > use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
> > conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).
> >
> > Julian Scarfe

[Julian Scarfe]

> > There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using
the
> > GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial.
Forgive
> > me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots
don't
> > use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
> > conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
> to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
> been able to find anything on this in the manual.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about something much more trivial. The
only number on the GPS you need is the TRK readout. Use the NAV's CDI for
course guidance. Best illustrated with an example.

You're on the 250 radial and want to track a 070 course to the ABC VOR. Set
the CDI to 070 and turn the aircraft until the track readout shows 070. The
aircraft will (barring VOR errors) stay on the radial. If it does move,
turn the aircraft to adjust the track.

The GPS doesn't need to know about the existence of VORs or LOCs.

It doesn't help you with programming the GPS for course guidance along a
winding airway, but it's an aspect of GPS utility that many pilots seem to
ignore.

Julian Scarfe

[Julian Scarfe]

> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1087790958.150362@sj-nntpcache-5...
> > I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
> > my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
> > should
> > be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
> > zigzagging its way down the airways.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:DDtBc.126215$3x.55034@attbi_s54...
> Sounds like you have a Cessna 300A.

I do the same and I have an STEC 60-2.

The problem seems to be the tracking algorithm. If you're slightly off
track a/p turns the aircraft through, say, 20 degrees, and waits for a CDI
movement. Then it makes largish corrections and ends up snaking its way
along the centerline, albeit with decreasing amplitude oscillations. And if
*all* you have is a CDI, that's probably the best you can do. But it's
hooked up to the GPS and so I would expect it to be able to turn directly to
a waypoint without the major heading excursions that scare the hell out of
ATC in a busy environment.

Julian Scarfe

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:11:04 +0100, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>I do the same and I have an STEC 60-2.
>
>The problem seems to be the tracking algorithm. If you're slightly off
>track a/p turns the aircraft through, say, 20 degrees, and waits for a CDI
>movement.

I have an STEC50 and a CNX80.

The CNX80 has airways, so regardless of how I am cleared, I track enroute
using GPS mode.

As recommended by STEC, I use the APR mode for tracking a GPS course.

My off-track distance does vary, but by usually less than 1000'. In
heading mode, I will eventually drift off that much, or more. The turns
are rarely more than five degrees, once centered.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> How do you do that with the 296? How do you program in a radial to fly
> to? I don't even see radials on the VORs when I look at it. I haven't
> been able to find anything on this in the manual.

If it's like the 196, go to the page displaying the pseudo-HSI and press Menu,
one of the options is "OBS".

>
>
>>There's nothing to stop you using the VOR for course guidance but using the
>>GPS track readout to ensure that your track matches the VOR radial. Forgive
>>me if that's very obvious, but I'm always surprised at how many pilots don't
>>use that aspect of the GPS to take the hard work out of tracking
>>conventional navaids (particularly on the ILS).
>>
>>Julian Scarfe
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael 182 wrote:

> You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.

This is about intercepting an airway at some point that's not a fix, right?
In that case, you could "build" the airway segment with the fixes before
and after your intercept point or you could get "after" fix into the GPS
and then use OBS mode.

I have to admit, though, when given an airway intercept I find it easier to
use a VOR receiver. The "user interface" seems to involve less work to me
(although the end result of the GPS process yields more benefit).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
>
>> > Why not use a VOR receiver for airway navigation? Using a GPS for
>> > airway navigation kind of seems backwards.
>
> Have you tried it? Putting a flightplan in the GPS and then flying the
> line on the moving map eliminates having to worry about crosswind
> correction. None of this flying a heading for awhile and seeing how that
> works. Then
> adjusting that heading constantly for constantly changing conditions.
> With a GPS you don't need a DG to fly an airway.

Unless you're happy with S turning your way along, this is only true if
you've the GPS providing track information. A 172S I used to fly had an
MFD plugged into the GPS. It provided not just the flight plan on the map,
but also a line indicating the path the flight would take if no changes
were made. Put that line over the course line, and details like heading,
deviation, and such become pretty trivial.

Alternatively, just match desired track with actual track (starting from a
zero OBS deflection, of course {8^).

That damned MFD really spoiled me, in fact. I was S turning for a while
when I stopped flying that airplane <laugh>.

On the 430s I fly now, there are only four fields in which information can
be displayed. I use "next waypoint", distance to next waypoint", "desired
track", and "ground speed". I had to give up "actual track", sadly.

- Andrew

[Mick Ruthven]

We have an STEC 60-2 in our Bonanza 36 with a Trimble Approach 2000 GPS and
a King HSI. After we had the autopilot tweaked for tracking a GPS course,
it's been very good tracking in NAV mode.

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:OKwBc.8$AX2.5@newsfe6-win...
>
> I do the same and I have an STEC 60-2.
>
> The problem seems to be the tracking algorithm. If you're slightly off
> track a/p turns the aircraft through, say, 20 degrees, and waits for a CDI
> movement. Then it makes largish corrections and ends up snaking its way
> along the centerline, albeit with decreasing amplitude oscillations. And
if
> *all* you have is a CDI, that's probably the best you can do. But it's
> hooked up to the GPS and so I would expect it to be able to turn directly
to
> a waypoint without the major heading excursions that scare the hell out of
> ATC in a busy environment.
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Sounds more like the old days of trying to fly an NDB intercept.
Correcting cross winds in your example sounds harder than actually
usnig a VOR. The reason I like airways on the GPS is because while the
clouds are wacking the crap out of you and you're jumping through busy
airspace, you can quickly turn the plane to maintain the center of the
airway. You also don't need to figure out what intersection the airway
turns at next. It sounds like Garmin IFR pilots keep an enroute very
close at hand so they can figure out where all the turns are in the
airway.

-Robert


"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message news:<vzwBc.5$AX2.0@newsfe6-win>...
> You're on the 250 radial and want to track a 070 course to the ABC VOR. Set
> the CDI to 070 and turn the aircraft until the track readout shows 070. The
> aircraft will (barring VOR errors) stay on the radial. If it does move,
> turn the aircraft to adjust the track.
>
> The GPS doesn't need to know about the existence of VORs or LOCs.
>
> It doesn't help you with programming the GPS for course guidance along a
> winding airway, but it's an aspect of GPS utility that many pilots seem to
> ignore.
>
> Julian Scarfe

[Julian Scarfe]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Sounds more like the old days of trying to fly an NDB intercept.
> Correcting cross winds in your example sounds harder than actually
> usnig a VOR.

I think that's only because I laid it out so painfully. How about this
method?

1) At VOR, turn aircraft to track towards next VOR
2) Goto 1.

> The reason I like airways on the GPS is because while the
> clouds are wacking the crap out of you and you're jumping through busy
> airspace, you can quickly turn the plane to maintain the center of the
> airway. You also don't need to figure out what intersection the airway
> turns at next. It sounds like Garmin IFR pilots keep an enroute very
> close at hand so they can figure out where all the turns are in the
> airway.

Some of the differing perspective in this thread are due to flying in
environments with different demands. I fly in an environment in which the
requirement is almost always to fly direct towards a waypoint rather than
track a centerline, and which is sufficiently busy that making significant
turns to make aggressive radial intercepts is going to raise some eyebrows
at ATC. You fly in an environment in which the choice is to follow the
airway centerlines or hit rock.

All that said, airways on Garmins would be a nice feature.

Julian Scarfe

[Robert M. Gary]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message news:<nKRBc.1345$I43.1315@newsfe6-win>...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> Some of the differing perspective in this thread are due to flying in
> environments with different demands. I fly in an environment in which the
> requirement is almost always to fly direct towards a waypoint rather than
> track a centerline, and which is sufficiently busy that making significant
> turns to make aggressive radial intercepts is going to raise some eyebrows
> at ATC. You fly in an environment in which the choice is to follow the
> airway centerlines or hit rock.
>
> All that said, airways on Garmins would be a nice feature.


Well, I ordered the unit and am pretty excited about getting it.
Sportys said they should have some in this week to ship. I'm really
excited about putting on the hood and seeing if I can maintain the
blue side up using their turn-coordinator display. I think that could
be a HUGE IFR backup. It will also be cool to take the unit out when
you get to your destination and use it to find your hotel.

-Robert

[John Harper]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:DDtBc.126215$3x.55034@attbi_s54...
> Sounds like you have a Cessna 300A.

A Century 31. It's a good autopilot and flies smoothly even with
a fair amount of turbulence, and holds altitude to within a few feet.
But its nav following isn't great. I think it could be fixed with
some tweaking, but I've given the avionics shop enough of
my money as it is, and it isn't a practical problem.

John

>
> Michael
>
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1087790958.150362@sj-nntpcache-5...
> > I agree that this is a great technique. In fact I never use NAV mode on
> > my autopilot, I just tweak the heading until the track matches what it
> > should
> > be (and keep an eye on it obviously). Much better than the autopilot
> > zigzagging its way down the airways.
>
>

[John Harper]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> As recommended by STEC, I use the APR mode for tracking a GPS course.
>
That could get entertaining if you pick up a glide slope while
you're at altitude....

[John Harper]

There is another way to do this with the Garmin. Suppose
you're on V123 sector between the A and B VORs,
and you have to turn onto V345 at an unnamed intersection
between the X and Y VORs. Enter the flightplan
A-B-X-Y. It will look funny on the display, but don't
worry about it. Start flying from A to B. When you
get fairly close to V345 (say five miles), go to the
flight plan page, cursor down to Y and hit
Direct-Direct-Enter. The GPS now thinks you're
trying to intercept V345. Fly current heading
until the CDI comes in, or even easier
hit HDG-NAV on the a/p and let the autopilot
fly the intercept.

Or you can just use the VORs - which is what
I do.

Would it be easier if the GPS could do this all
by itself? Sure. Would it be of the slightest
significance in the big scheme of things? I don't
think so.

John

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Michael 182 wrote:
>
> > You enter the one behind you and activate the leg you are intercepting.
>
> This is about intercepting an airway at some point that's not a fix,
right?
> In that case, you could "build" the airway segment with the fixes before
> and after your intercept point or you could get "after" fix into the GPS
> and then use OBS mode.
>
> I have to admit, though, when given an airway intercept I find it easier
to
> use a VOR receiver. The "user interface" seems to involve less work to me
> (although the end result of the GPS process yields more benefit).
>
> - Andrew
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:15:06 -0700, "John Harper" >
wrote:

>That could get entertaining if you pick up a glide slope while
>you're at altitude....

How would that happen?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John Harper]

Not sure what you mean. The glide slope goes on for
ever, it doesn't stop at the outer marker. Given the
right runway and a powerful enough receiver, you could
pick it up on Pluto. (Voyager transmits on 2W or so).

So there you are at 15000' in APP mode and you
pick up a GS, whereupon the autopilot will start a
coupled approach and start you on down the glideslope.
My understanding is that the only difference between
APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
is enabled. If the GS and dest waypoint happen to be in much
the same direction you could get a long way down...

Of course you'd spot this happening and recover (right?)
but still it would be an interesting moment.

John

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:15:06 -0700, "John Harper" >
> wrote:
>
> >That could get entertaining if you pick up a glide slope while
> >you're at altitude....
>
> How would that happen?
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dan Luke]

"John Harper" wrote:
..
> My understanding is that the only difference between
> APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
> is enabled.

Nope. On an S-TEC 50, the only difference between APP and NAV is the
degree of sensitivity to CDI deflection: APP is more sensitive. The 50
does not do VNAV; there's now way it could "pick up the glide slope."

In my airplane, I set the S-TEC 50 to APP and the KLN-90B GPS CDI output
to 1.0 mile. This setup keeps me on course with a cross track error of
<50'.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:20:18 -0700, "John Harper" >
wrote:

>Not sure what you mean. The glide slope goes on for
>ever, it doesn't stop at the outer marker. Given the
>right runway and a powerful enough receiver, you could
>pick it up on Pluto. (Voyager transmits on 2W or so).

Yeah, but you have to have a receiver tuned to that frequency, don't you?
At least with the receivers I've used in light GA a/c, I've not picked up a
GS signal without tuning to the appropriate frequency.

You would also need to have the CDI in the GPS receiver set to output the
VOR/LOC signal, and not the GPS signal information.

>
>So there you are at 15000' in APP mode and you
>pick up a GS, whereupon the autopilot will start a
>coupled approach and start you on down the glideslope.
>My understanding is that the only difference between
>APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
>is enabled.

With respect to the STEC50, your understanding is incorrect. The
difference has to do with sensitivity to the signal. And there is no GS
coupling with my STEC50.

>If the GS and dest waypoint happen to be in much
>the same direction you could get a long way down...
>

Do other GPS receivers allow you to navigate with both a GPS signal, and
some random GP signal that happens to be in the same direction? The CNX80
certainly does not.


>Of course you'd spot this happening and recover (right?)
>but still it would be an interesting moment.

I can't imagine a failure mode that would result in this scenario.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John Harper]

Hmm. Yep, I guess you're right. You'd have to be
tuned to an ILS for this to happen (even assuming
you have an a/p that does coupled approaches),
and have the GPS in VLOC mode (well I suppose
so, I haven't actually checked to see if the HSI
tracks the GS if you have the 530 tuned to an ILS
but in GPS mode, it would be odd if it did).

I guess I just had it drummed into me not to use APP
mode unless you really mean it, and this was the
rationale. I don't know if my a/p does anything
different in APP mode, other than GS tracking.
Certainly the GPS is more sensitive when you get
within 30 miles of the destination. And my a/p
works a lot better in that case for NAV tracking,
which is what makes me think it could be made
to work well in normal mode too.

John

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:20:18 -0700, "John Harper" >
> wrote:
>
> >Not sure what you mean. The glide slope goes on for
> >ever, it doesn't stop at the outer marker. Given the
> >right runway and a powerful enough receiver, you could
> >pick it up on Pluto. (Voyager transmits on 2W or so).
>
> Yeah, but you have to have a receiver tuned to that frequency, don't you?
> At least with the receivers I've used in light GA a/c, I've not picked up
a
> GS signal without tuning to the appropriate frequency.
>
> You would also need to have the CDI in the GPS receiver set to output the
> VOR/LOC signal, and not the GPS signal information.
>
> >
> >So there you are at 15000' in APP mode and you
> >pick up a GS, whereupon the autopilot will start a
> >coupled approach and start you on down the glideslope.
> >My understanding is that the only difference between
> >APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
> >is enabled.
>
> With respect to the STEC50, your understanding is incorrect. The
> difference has to do with sensitivity to the signal. And there is no GS
> coupling with my STEC50.
>
> >If the GS and dest waypoint happen to be in much
> >the same direction you could get a long way down...
> >
>
> Do other GPS receivers allow you to navigate with both a GPS signal, and
> some random GP signal that happens to be in the same direction? The CNX80
> certainly does not.
>
>
> >Of course you'd spot this happening and recover (right?)
> >but still it would be an interesting moment.
>
> I can't imagine a failure mode that would result in this scenario.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:56:11 -0700, "John Harper" >
wrote:

>I guess I just had it drummed into me not to use APP
>mode unless you really mean it, and this was the
>rationale. I don't know if my a/p does anything
>different in APP mode, other than GS tracking.
>Certainly the GPS is more sensitive when you get
>within 30 miles of the destination. And my a/p
>works a lot better in that case for NAV tracking,
>which is what makes me think it could be made
>to work well in normal mode too.

Well, the reason I started using APP mode for tracking GPS was because that
was the recommendation of the a/p manufacturer! (Stec in this case). And,
being more sensitive, there is less course wandering. Since the signal is
more stable than a VOR signal, it made sense to me to follow the mfg
recommendation.

I never had the (mis)fortune of having someone drum into me anything about
using the a/p :-)




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Rapoport]

If the 430 is in GPS mode, it won't output GS information.

Mike
MU-2


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1087931861.386166@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As recommended by STEC, I use the APR mode for tracking a GPS course.
> >
> That could get entertaining if you pick up a glide slope while
> you're at altitude....
>
>

[Javier Henderson]

"John Harper" > writes:

> My understanding is that the only difference between
> APP and NAV modes is whether the GS coupling
> is enabled. If the GS and dest waypoint happen to be in much
> the same direction you could get a long way down...

Your understanding is incorrect.

One of the differences between NAV and APR mode is how aggressive the
a/p will be to keep the needle centered.

The GS capture is not armed unless you have a localizer frequency
channeled in (ie, tuned in a nav radio, and the a/p is coupled to
that radio), among other things.

-jav

[Jeff]

well, whats the requirements for filing /G


Hankal wrote:

> >because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS
>
> Why not? I hardly ever file direct and when I do, ATC will amend the clearance.
> However I often hear ATC tell me to go direct.
> In my IFR flight plan I specify that I have a VFR GPS on board.
> Hank

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff > wrote:

>because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
>with an IFR certified GPS

Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> well, whats the requirements for filing /G

IFR approved terminal/enroute or approach approved GPS.

[[email protected]]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> No one wants to, but you can't control everything. The reason airways
> are so common out West is because they include all the turns around
> restricted airspace and busy class B airports. If you didn't use
> airways, you'd have to read off 5 different turn points (for GPS
> direct).
>
>

There are also those pesky mountains that need avoiding out west.

[Wyatt Emmerich]

I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
confident about my instruments in IMC.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:<nKRBc.1345$I43.1315@newsfe6-win>...
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > Some of the differing perspective in this thread are due to flying in
> > environments with different demands. I fly in an environment in which
the
> > requirement is almost always to fly direct towards a waypoint rather
than
> > track a centerline, and which is sufficiently busy that making
significant
> > turns to make aggressive radial intercepts is going to raise some
eyebrows
> > at ATC. You fly in an environment in which the choice is to follow the
> > airway centerlines or hit rock.
> >
> > All that said, airways on Garmins would be a nice feature.
>
>
> Well, I ordered the unit and am pretty excited about getting it.
> Sportys said they should have some in this week to ship. I'm really
> excited about putting on the hood and seeing if I can maintain the
> blue side up using their turn-coordinator display. I think that could
> be a HUGE IFR backup. It will also be cool to take the unit out when
> you get to your destination and use it to find your hotel.
>
> -Robert

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:

> I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
> panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
> struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
> situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
> confident about my instruments in IMC.

I've tried that experiment once (actually, my student was flying; I was
just looking out the window and kibbitzing). I put us into some unusual
attitudes, and he did the recoveries. He did best if he completely
ignored the GPS pitch information and just used rudder inputs to achieve
zero rate of turn, relying on the elevator trim to take care of pitch.

The result was pretty ugly, but survivable. When he was trying to
control attitude with the synthetic AI and ASI, we just got into larger
and larger pitch oscillations and eventually I had to take control.

[kage]

>>>>He did best if he completely ignored the GPS pitch information <<<<

GPS gives no "pitch" information. None.

Karl


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
>
> > I tried to fly under the hood relying on just the Garmin 196 artificial
> > panel. It's doable, but there were pretty big deviations and I had to
> > struggle. In real IFR in an emergency. . .I wouldn't want to be in that
> > situation. However, it is a nice reinforcer that helps me feel more
> > confident about my instruments in IMC.
>
> I've tried that experiment once (actually, my student was flying; I was
> just looking out the window and kibbitzing). I put us into some unusual
> attitudes, and he did the recoveries. He did best if he completely
> ignored the GPS pitch information and just used rudder inputs to achieve
> zero rate of turn, relying on the elevator trim to take care of pitch.
>
> The result was pretty ugly, but survivable. When he was trying to
> control attitude with the synthetic AI and ASI, we just got into larger
> and larger pitch oscillations and eventually I had to take control.

[Roy Smith]

"kage" > wrote:
> GPS gives no "pitch" information. None.

Have you looked at the 196?

http://www.garmin.com/products/gpsmap196/

No, it does not directly display pitch in the sense of a picture of a
synthetic AI, but it does display airspeed, altitude, and vertical rate.
The same sources of pitch information you have flying partial panel.

My point was that if you use the synthetic airspeed (which, of course,
is really groundspeed), altitude, and vertical rate and try to fly it
like you would partial panel with the pitot-static instruments, you end
up getting into trouble.

[Jeff]

how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?




Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
> >with an IFR certified GPS
>
> Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Matt Young]

I don't remember the exact verbiage of the regulation, but you have to
have appropriate radios for the navigation signals being used. Meaning,
if you don't have an IFR approved GPS, you don't have appropriate
equipment to use for navigation using GPS. You would have to either
have a VOR based R-NAV system, or file direct via VORs, depending on
your altitude and the type of VORs.

Jeff wrote:

> how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?
>
>
>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
>>>with an IFR certified GPS
>>
>>Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?
>>
>>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:42:19 -0700, Jeff > wrote:

>how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?

<sigh> I guess you've not been flying long. Folk used to fly direct long
before GPS.

There are a number of ways of navigating direct to a fix, using an HSI/RMI
and DME , a TACAN, or a VOR and DME. In fact, any one who carries an E6-B
in his shirt pocket could go direct to a fix using the above reference
navigation instruments.

The technique is found in the USAF instrument flight manual and has been
taught there for many years.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dave Butler]

Jeff wrote:
> how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?
>

Use google groups to search for "ham sandwich" in this newsgroup.

Dave

> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
>>>with an IFR certified GPS
>>
>>Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?

[Dan Thompson]

Whoo hoo, here we go again! The short answer is you can fly direct to your
destination IFR using dead reckoning or pilotage from ATC. As you go, use
your handheld GPS to monitor the accuracy of your your progress.

Nothing says you have to use a radio to fly IFR. The requirement is a
performance standard, not an equipment standard. You are to stay on the
cleared route. How you do it is not regulated. You could navigate with a
ham sandwich and no one would care as long as you stayed on your route.
Just be sure to file "/H".

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> how are you going to get to your destination if filing direct?
>
>
>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:01:50 -0700, Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > >because you cannot go direct with a hand held GPS, You can only file /G
> > >with an IFR certified GPS
> >
> > Where does it say that you have to file /G in order to go direct?
> >
> > Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>

[Stuart King]

I was wondering where that sandwich was.


So if i have no VOR, ADF or E6B, but i do have a G430, what is my suffix
code (with encoding altimiter) ?

SK

[Newps]

"Stuart King" > wrote in message
.com...
> I was wondering where that sandwich was.
>
>
> So if i have no VOR, ADF or E6B, but i do have a G430, what is my suffix
> code (with encoding altimiter) ?

/G

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:22:06 GMT, "Stuart King"
> wrote:

>So if i have no VOR, ADF or E6B, but i do have a G430, what is my suffix
>code (with encoding altimiter) ?

In the US, is the G430 now certified as sole navigation source in the a/c
(IFR)?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jerry Kaidor]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> I just recently decided to buy our first Garmin GPS (296). I had not
> in the past because they were so far behind on providing terrain. They
> fixed that with the 296. However, the one outstanding item missing on
> the 296 are airways.

*** And on the 430/530 as other folks have mentioned. But I understand
that some serious upgrades are coming up for these boxes this year. Reading
the proposed price tags suggests to me: "New CPU board". I'm told that these
boxes have embedded 386-class processors - computers have come a long way
since then. I wonder if airways might make it into the updated stuff?

- Jerry Kaidor ( )

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:22:06 GMT, "Stuart King"
> > wrote:
>
>>So if i have no VOR, ADF or E6B, but i do have a G430, what is my suffix
>>code (with encoding altimiter) ?
>
> In the US, is the G430 now certified as sole navigation source in the a/c
> (IFR)?

The 430/530 carry a VOR.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jerry Kaidor wrote:


> *** And on the 430/530 as other folks have mentioned. But I understand
> that some serious upgrades are coming up for these boxes this year.
> Reading
> the proposed price tags suggests to me: "New CPU board".

Where can one find information on these [pending] upgrades?

- Andrew

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:58:28 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:22:06 GMT, "Stuart King"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>So if i have no VOR, ADF or E6B, but i do have a G430, what is my suffix
>>>code (with encoding altimiter) ?
>>
>> In the US, is the G430 now certified as sole navigation source in the a/c
>> (IFR)?
>
>The 430/530 carry a VOR.
>
> - Andrew

I see. Then Stuart's question is not clear, as he would have to have a VOR
if he had a 430.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)